On GMOs

I wrote this on Facebook in response to a recent proposal to ban all GMO crops in Oregon, and thought it was worth posting here.

———————————————————

What bothers me is the powerful, irrational fear that grips some people upon any mention of genetic modification. Like whoever drew the GMO cancer-riddled man on the OSU sidewalks last week. I think this represents a failure of science to communicate well to the public. People don’t understand it, and what they see is not rational, minor genome modifications with a specific goal but rather mad, shot-in-the-dark scientists with good intentions producing Frankenstein.

I play with genes as a major part of my research, with the goal of directing more solar energy toward hydrogen production in cyanobacteria. One of the things that occurs to me is that we need a council of non-industry geneticists and scientifically educated risk managers overseeing regulation and approval of GMOs. Certainly it is possible to produce a human-toxic, ecosystem-toxic, or otherwise problematic (i.e. roundup-ready weeds) crop using genetic engineering. But it is equally possible to perform genetic changes that carry no more risk than varieties produced using conventional breeding. In my opinion there needs to be a fast-track allowing universities and small businesses to bring risk-free GMOs to market without spending millions on regulatory approvals.

If you’re wondering how risk can be so easily evaluated, it would depend on the nature of the modification. Deleting or downregulating a native gene carries essentially zero risk. Insertion of a gene from another food crop carries minimal risk, and any toxic effects are easily tested. Insertion of a gene from a non-food species (e.g. golden rice, roundup ready) should be evaluated a bit more thoroughly in case the proteins produced have negative or allergenic effects upon consumption. Insertion of a toxin-producing gene (e.g. Bt corn), even if the toxin is not harmful to humans, should be evaluated very carefully or perhaps banned completely given potential ecosystem-level effects.

I really wish that the GMO movement had started with Arctic Apples from Okanagan rather than Roundup Ready and Bt corn from Monsanto. Okanagan is a small company with seven employees based in British Columbia. Their product is an apple with the polyphenol oxidase gene turned off, causing it not to turn brown when cut or bruised. The mutation can be easily introduced into any existing apple variety. Now I agree that this won’t save lives a la Golden Rice, but it is simple, cool, and has zero potential to hurt any people, insects, ecosystems, etc. Furthermore Okanagan’s CEO is doing his level best to maintain transparency and open communication with the public, and he fully supports labeling of their apples as genetically modified – because they worked really hard on the modification and want people to know that.  I look forward to trying these apples when they appear in 2016 or so, and would even like to be able to buy organic Arctic Apples. The absolute opposition of the organic movement to anything GMO is proving to be a huge liability to organic farmers as the prevalence of GMOs increases, and while both banning GMOs and allowing GMO organics would both solve the issue, I think allowing GMO organics would ultimately be the better option.

Finally, a bit about proprietary genes and labeling. Genetic engineering used to require more work than conventional breeding, but given the rapid pace of advances in molecular biology it is now actually a good bit easier. It remains more expensive only because of the lengthy regulatory approval process specific to GMOs. Therefore there is no reason for enhanced patent protection. In my vision genes could be patented, but only as protection against other companies re-creating the product. Gene patents should not affect farmers or prevent farmers from saving and re-planting GMO seed. I fully support labeling, though I think there should be some cutoff like 5% or 10% of the final product below which labeling is not required. Otherwise it becomes a major materials tracking headache and potential liability if, say, the soybeans used to make the lecithin in a chocolate bar turn out to be GMO. I also think the labels should say not just GMO but be required to state some specifics, i.e. “made with corn genetically modified for insect and herbicide resistance.” This would help with the healthy development of shades of gray rather than the stark black and white that defines the GMO debate these days.  In conclusion I’m not convinced that genetic engineering is necessary to save the world, but I do think it is a technology with a lot of positive potential that can be compatible with a community-centric, sustainable, small-farms vision of agriculture.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.